Blue Max said:
The book is called the Moscow Option, by David Downing. It explores the possibility of Hitler being incapacitated during the Barbarossa campaign (and so the Wehrmacht gets to do what they want to do and take Moscow in 1941). The Fall of Moscow changes the entire balance of the war. I won't discuss that much more of it, other than its exhaustively researched and a good read. (spoil too much if I say more)
Very cool to know. I asked because I've a bunch of WWII AH books on order from Amazon, I'll try and add this one to the order if it isn't already shipped.
The problem with this after event is that the post BP Soviet Union is in too much turmoil to split apart into nationalistic pieces. If nothing else, collective fear and hate of Germany (and possibly Japan) will force some kind of solidarity on the Soviet People. From Adolf's point of view, the Ukraine becomes a german Food Machine and White Russia, Karelia and Muscovy become the future home of Germany.
This might indeed be a balancing factor, I concede. However, there also will be the anger at the leadership that let such a national disaster happen.
But where does this realistically leave the Soviet people? I refuse to believe that a reasonable person would simply let them starve. [Beria MIGHT, though] Instead, I think they too would need a place to live. My proposed Idea is that something along the lines of the 'Virgin Lands Campaign' happens in Kazakh Steppes and they gain a huge amount of people. The numbers are themselves unbelievable--20 Million from Poland alone, perhaps as many as 100 Million in total.
Hmm, a modified version of the massive agricultural development project they had in Central Asia in the '50s and 60s. Yes, I think it is feasible and even realistic, and yes, the numbers involved are going to be in the upwards of 100 Million and more: you got most or all (some will likely be deemed racially and ideologically fit for Germanization) of Czech, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians. I dunno about Baltics. Siberia is not really good for massive colonization on this scale, but the kazkh steppes might just become the new Slav heartland in these conditions.
Nationalism is going to have to cool off for a while--the new heartland of the Rodina is going to be ethnically blended. I expect the numbers would require the immediate expansion of Infrastructure and Industrial capacity. The post BP Soviet Union will have little choice but to incorporate huge numbers of Poles, Various Russians and Central Asians into a new territory. It's quite possible that this overrides older history and a new 'people' are made as a result. Shared Hardship might serve as a melting pot for a 'new russian man', forged in the furnace of starvation and forced immigration.
Yes, it make sense. A kinda Slav (Poles, Russians, and Czechs too. they will also get the eviction move) USA or Israel new national identity. Indeed, if you move 10^8 Slavs in Siberia and Central Asia and they have all of the Siberia's mineral resources, the central asian fields, a couple decades to develop agriculture and industry and settle, they might just forge a new major power.
Please allow me to remark that maybe I misexplained my point. I was not thinking of nationalistic splintering as the result of national feuds among the refugees, I was thinking of them using nationalities as rallying points to defy and dispatch the old Communist leadership that brought them to such an unprecedented disasrter. You know, just the same way anti-communists used nationalism to break the USSR up in 1991.
However, let's not delude ourselves by thinking that the Soviet Union can afford a war post BP. At this time, it must struggle to support its population on new territory. If the Soviet Leadership can not do this, starving immigrants will take matters into their own hands--and even NKVD terror can not stifle such a basic need.
This is quite sure. I do not foresee them being able to seek a rematch before a couple decades.
Given time, this state might be considerably more viable than the pessimistic outlook you present. The matters of survival handled (and the land could support this population with great effort), these people need each other to survive. Only their numbers and their determination provide protection against outside imperialism.
Again, I misexplained myself. I do not see nationalism among the various entnic groups as a way to seek out feuds, but a an alternative ideology to defy the Communists, which would be a really bankrupt ruling elite in the wake of BP.
Only a stupid leadership (again, Beria counts, as does Stalin) would attempt to do anything other than keep the people alive. And if it does go into civil war, it would be 'Russia' Vs Stalinist Soviets, not a mismatch of nations.
Indeed it may be. It depends on how the refugees get resettled on the land and if a true melting pot ethnic mix arises, the challenge to the Soviet leadership is going to be naked Whites vs. Reds ideological sruggle instead a "1989/1991" scenario. But I see such a challenge absolutely coming.
Irroth, you've got a deal on the 2nd withdrawal. If the extra triangle of territory he's yielding is just a bunch of empty space, it's probably all the same to Stalin.
Well, not really an empty space, unless they just blow up everything. You cannot transfer all the stuff in a few months. Scorched earth, however, is somehow possible, but not completely so.
The 10-25 year goal of the Germanisiung Plan, however, is likely to begin 'with all speed'. Occupied Poland faced forced deportations with considerable speed for such a long term project, already in just 4 years nearly 1 million Poles were deported. On this basis, it's hard to argue that the forced expulsion of 100 million people would not result in a considerable proportion of them expelled within the Doomsday timeline. Even if just 1/5th of the project were completed by 1954, this is still the entire population of Poland being transfered to Siberia. This IS considerable and within the timeframe of the game.
Indeed, it is reasonable to hypothesize that they could manage to move out at least 20 million people by 1950-1954 (it depends when the war in the East gets won, 1941-1943 is a likely range), and at least double so by 1960-1965, and complete the task in the '70s. It is quite likely they would start with the lands most close to the borders of the Reich, I guess, so Baltics, Poles and Czechs would be the first to go. Hmm, we get to check how much manpower Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, and the Baltic states represent, for a start, and a rough schedule of the population transfer for the various areas of the lebenstraum.
Here's my take on the events as listed.
Stalin/Beria Remains in Charge: Stays Stalinist, Civil War (20%)
Moderate Party Members take Control: Swings to Leninist (Policy remains max Left but authoritarian slides down four points) Nikita Khrushchev comes to power, Dissent, but no Civil War. (40%)
We must lick German Boots to keep alive* (20%), Soviet Union switches to Fascist (Authoritarian down two, policy goes hard right), Probably Vlassov in control. See Below.
Communism has Failed; we must attempt Democracy. (10%). Soviet Union goes to Left Wing Radical, and Alexander Kerensky leads the country. This Causes some dissent, but it offers at least some chance of the Soviet Union rising again. They leave the commintern; if they go to war with Germany they will join the Allies. In addition, if Japan is beaten, they might well DoW as soon as they have the troops and Germany is stumbling.
Collapse: (10%). Soviet Union liberates Siberia, Transurals, Primorsk and Uzbekistan. It keeps claims on the new warlord states and Gets Omsk and Novosibirsk back from Siberia. The Soviet Union is no longer in any position to do more than Nationalist China can against Japan. The current government remains in control of the Soviet Union, but it suffers no civil war. Instead, a Human Soviet Player might be able to reassemble the pieces. However, Transural is likely to become a German Puppet and Primorsk a Japanese one.
Seems reasonable, except IMO you give far too much residual appeal to radical left-wing ideology as a whole . Mind it, in such a timeline, communism has got a failure as monumental as nazifascism in ours, it's going to be a completely despised and ostracized ideology.
I'd say:
Stalin/Beria Remains in Charge: Stays Stalinist or Leninist, Civil War (10%).
Likely Beria, I very much doubt the generals and the secret police would accept to keep obeying Stalin the Destroyer of Mother Russia.
Moderate Party Members take Control: Swings to Left-Wing Radical. Nikita Khrushchev comes to power, Dissent, but no Civil War. (15%)
Fascism is the way of the future (30%), Soviet Union switches to Fascist or Paternal Autocrat (change tag to RUS), Vlassov in control.
Communism has Failed; we must attempt Democracy. (30%). Soviet Union goes to Market Liberal or Social Liberal (change tag to RUS), and Alexander Kerensky leads the country.
Indeed, assuming the USA conquer Japan, they might likely let a democratic Russia reoccupy it, something they would loathe to do with a fascist or communist Russia.
Collapse: (15%). Soviet Union liberates Siberia, Transurals, Primorsk and Kazakhstan. It keeps claims on the new warlord states and Gets Omsk and Novosibirsk back from Siberia.
Why Uzbekistan ? rather Kazakstan, they are the big Central Asian states with a lot of cores. The tricky issue with this option is to decide where the borders are going to go, and where the rump SU is going to be based.
about my political views, I hope I clarified the misunderstanding, but about the general point you make, please allow myself to state that I view any absolute appeal to the all-conquering power of peaceful coexistence with the deepest regret, in view of some historical situations (can I say Middle East ?). It may work in some cirucmstances (South Africa), absolutely not in others.
Again, this has very little to do with our post-BP Slav refugees, who may just nicely mingle in a new "settler" nationality. It has everything to do with my extreme skepticism for any real solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that does not involve defining an arbitrary border that will allow decent chances of security and economic development for the two peoples, completely disregarding who has the bloody historical and legal rights to what, kicking out everybody that is on the wrong side of the fence, building a mile-high wall in the middle with electrified barbwire and a moat with swimming alligators, and letting things cool down for a couple generations.
It was a off-topic comment, really, but let me please put to record that IMO there are situations where coexistence is a laughable perspective and forceful separation is the only viable choice. As in between partners, so in between peoples.
